Nearly a decade ago, the Minnesota Department of Education thoroughly
revised the social-studies standards for K-12 public schools. Largely a
response to the much-reviled Profiles of Learning, these new standards
sought to beef up content and drastically reduce the busywork that was
so prominent under the Profiles -- and so frustrating to both teachers
and students.

Today, the department is about the business of somewhat revising the
social-studies standards. "Tweaking" might be the right word. At least,
that's the hope of those doing the tweaking, since significant
alterations would require the approval of the Legislature. So tweaking
it is.

Since I'm an American historian, I'll confine my comments to what
might happen to the study of American history in Minnesota's high school
classrooms once the existing standards have been properly tweaked.
"Might happen" is the operative phrase. The entire matter is before an
administrative law judge, who must decide whether the department's
tweaks rise to the level of revision that demands legislative sanction.

What were some of the changes?

It's worth noting that the 2004 standards were approved by the
Legislature. In addition, those standards were the result of a consensus
effort on the part of liberals and conservatives. One of its goals
suggested that students should learn of the sacrifices that previous
generations of Americans made to "win and keep liberty."

Is such a goal necessarily conservative or liberal? It shouldn't be
either. The 2004 standards deemed "patriotism" a core civic value. Is
this something that only liberals -- or only conservatives -- would
believe? Hardly.

The proposed new standards also include a lengthy list of "civic
values." Curiously, patriotism is not one of them. There are references
to "civic life in the 21st century," but few specific references to
American citizenship, much less to its history and obligations. Are such
tweakings (revisions?) designed to take the standards in a liberal or a
conservative direction?

Matters of specific historical content are even more telling and
troubling. The drafters of the 2004 standards placed great emphasis on
the Declaration of Independence, and its "inalienable rights and
self-evident truths." The new standards simply list the Declaration as
one of a number of things to analyze in studying the American
Revolution. Its centrality to our revolution is minimized, and its
impact on "subsequent revolutions in Europe, the Caribbean, and Latin
America" is heightened.

Differences between the 2004 standards and its updated version are
also apparent when it comes to the Civil War. In 2004, the causes,
conduct and consequences of that war are central. In the tweaked
standards, the Civil War is treated almost as an interlude lost in the
midst of the larger 19th-century story of American expansion and the
conquest of "indigenous and Mexican territory."

The post-Civil War story offers a few curious contrasts as well. The
2004 standards are thorough, straightforward and balanced in their
treatment of such crucial phenomena as urbanization, industrialization,
immigration and racial segregation. The new standards stress the "rise
of big business" and the implementation of "institutional racism."

Gone from the late 19th-century story is the role of "key inventions"
in improving American life. In its place is an emphasis on the
"intensified boom and bust cycles in an unregulated capitalist economy."

The 2004 standards asked students to assess the causes of the Great
Depression, as well as "demonstrate knowledge of how the New Deal
transformed American federalism." The tweaked standards presume that
"economic growth and political apathy" led to the Great Depression,
which in turn "spurred new forms of government intervention."

The origins and importance of the Cold War are highlighted in the
2004 standards. Not so in the tweaked document. Gone are such key events
as the imposition of the Iron Curtain, the Truman Doctrine and the
Marshall Plan. Instead, students will be comparing and contrasting
market and command economies and their "associated political ideologies"
by way of how both "contributed to the development of the Cold War."
Gone are specific decisions by key actors; instead the stress is on
vague historical forces.

The same can be said about the end of the Cold War. In the 2004
standards, it was thought important that students should know the
political and economic policies of the United States that "contributed
to the collapse of the Soviet Union." There is even a reference to
President Ronald Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech. In the new
standards, there is no reference to a Soviet Union, collapsed or
otherwise, and therefore no suggestion that American policies may have
contributed to its demise.

Worse than that is the new treatment of current American conflicts in
the Middle East or, more accurately, the absence thereof. The 2004
standards specifically mention 9/11, both Iraq wars and the ongoing war
in Afghanistan. All of this has been entirely tweaked out of the new
standards. It's as though the end of history really did arrive with the
end of the Cold War. Apparently, Minnesota students living in a
post-Cold War world need only to be able to "evaluate the United
States's global economic connections and interdependence with other
countries."

What's lost is an understanding of our nation's history and the principles upon which our nation was founded. An ignorant citizenry is not good for our republic or state.